Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description discloses decomposition and parallel routing, the findings-packet shape, gaps[] that are 'never invented,' contradictions[] for standard/thorough, citation_uri resolvability, semantic excerpting, and expected latency. That is substantial behavioral context added on top of the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but front-loaded and information-dense; nearly every sentence adds a distinct fact. It loses a point for some redundancy, notably 'use ask_pipeworx instead — it works on every tier' appearing in two places.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema, the description compensates well: it defines the findings packet, gaps, contradictions, hop field, citation_uri behavior, excerpting, and latency. Together with the schema and annotations, an agent has what it needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both params, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by explaining that 'thorough' is paid and by detailing what each depth does ('quick=3 ... single hop'), which matters for selecting an appropriate call.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear statement: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources ... in ONE call' and explicitly distinguishes itself with 'this is NOT open-web search.' It also routes single-lookup cases to ask_pipeworx, which differentiates it from a key sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: signed-out users should 'use ask_pipeworx instead,' 'thorough' requires a paid plan, and it is 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data' while 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead.' This is actionable routing, not just a vague preference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.